Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Archana Puri, JJ.
Bhupinder Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-700-DB of 2005
Decided On : 12-03-2020
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate, for the Appellants; Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases, especially in cases involving serious offences such as murder and house trespass.
Headnote:
IPC - Offences under Sections 302/323/449/450/149/148 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to murder, hurt, house trespass, and rioting. The interpretation of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, which deals with punishment for murder, and the application of Sections 449/450 read with Section 149 IPC, which deal with house trespass, were crucial in the court's decision. The court also considered the provisions related to the examination of witnesses under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the formalities of recording dying declarations.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed various offences including murder, hurt, and house trespass. The appellants denied the charges and argued that they were falsely implicated. The case revolved around the incident where the victim was set on fire, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented medical evidence and witness testimonies to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of medico-legal examinations for the alleged injuries, and discrepancies in the dying declaration. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, acquitted two appellants, and abated the appeal for the deceased appellants.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the reliability of the dying declaration, the presence of inconsistencies in the evidence, and the failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence and the presence of inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the failure to establish a consistent and reliable narrative.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and two appellants were acquitted. The appeal abated for the deceased appellants.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sharma, J. - This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 14.09.2005 and order dated 21.09.2005, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, in Sessions Case No. 11 dated 01.03.2002. The appellants were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302/323/449/450/149/148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC). They were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each, and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each under Sections 449/450 read with Section 149 IPC for committing the offence of house trespass. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) was also imposed on each of the appellant, and in default of payment of fine they were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. The appellants were also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year each under Section 148 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Appellants Tara Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Didar Singh died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, appeal qua them stood abated vide order dated 05.03.2020.
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 27.11.2001, Sunder Singh SI was on patrolling duty in the area of Chhachhrauli. Constable Shamsher Singh met him and handed over a ruqa Ex.PA sent by the doctor to the Police Station. He reached Police Post Rakshak Vihar, Jagadhri. After receiving ruqa and MLR of Harjit Singh, he went to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. He came to know that Harjit Singh had already been referred to PGI, Chandigarh. DDR No. 26 was recorded on the basis of statement of Harjit Singh Ex.PM. According to the contents of the statement of Harjit Singh, he and his brother Paramjit had litigation with Gurnam Singh etc. About 5-6 months back, a quarrel took place between them. A case was registered against Gurnam Singh etc. On 26.11.2001, he was sleeping in his house after taking his food. His brother Balbir Singh, father Jaswant Singh and Paramjit Singh were also sleeping. At about 9.00/10.00 PM, Gurnam Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Tara Singh, Didar Singh and Gurmeet Singh entered into the room, in which he was sleeping. Gurnam Singh removed quilt from his body and set him on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on his body. Bhupinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Paramjit Kaur, sister-in-law of Harjit Singh. His brothers Balbir Singh and Paramjit Singh also reached there. Tara Singh gave a lathi blow to Paramjit Singh. Didar Singh gave a lathi blow on his left hand. Gurmeet Singh gave lathi blow to Balbir Singh on his head and shoulder. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. On 28.11.2001, Sunder Singh SHO along with Tarsem Singh ASI and other police officials went to village Haidarpur to verify the facts. The place of occurrence was photographed. The articles i.e. quilt Ex.P5, dari Ex.P6, pillow Ex.P7, bed sheet Ex.P8, bottle Ex.P9, plastic can Ex.P10, another plastic can Ex.P11, parna Ex.P12, turban Ex.P13, vest Ex.P14, pant Ex.P15, shirt Ex.P16, another pant Ex.P17 and one cot Ex.P18 were taken into possession. FIR Ex.PQ was registered. On 05.12.2001, a message was received from PGI, Chandigarh that Harjit Singh had expired. Tarsem Singh ASI conducted the inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He moved an application for post-mortem examination. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. According to them, they were falsely implicated. They examined two witnesses i
